As an employer in the "newer/startup space", I have some thoughts on this:
> * Salary. Older employees are more experienced, but, just as importantly, they've already job-hopped a bit, so their base is a lot higher.
First of all, why does job hopping entitle you to a higher salary? A guy who's done 5 jobs of 2 years each, with one of them being most relevant to my position, vs. someone who's done 1 job of 10 years somewhere most relevant to my position is an easy choice. The latter will be more useful for my organization. Job hopping also seems negatively correlated to specialization, which IMO is your key differentiated value as a prospective employee.
Why should your career ADHD command a higher salary?
> And they've probably a lot more personal financial responsibilities. All told, they're unlikely to go for the same salary as a new grad.
Yeah, I can see this coming from a mile away and so I tend to not waste the time of people for whom this is the case. The easiest way for me to do this is being upfront about salary for the position.
> * Interview process. Anecdotal experience, but, the interview process is structured towards new grads. They've studied algorithms recently, so it's at their fingertips. Unless you've brushed up before interviewing you can look sloppy and unsure in comparison. This can be harder if you've an existing job and family commitments. (Note: I'm not saying you shouldn't study; just pointing out that this can happen.)
Fair.
> * It's hard to gauge experience. Simply because a person has been in the industry for 10 years doesn't mean that they're "more experienced".
True.
> * Finally, we devalue experience. A personal bugbear is hearing hiring managers say that they can train up a new grad to be a tech lead in about a year. Unless you've worked on a couple of largish projects - and seen your own designs evolve in response to requirements, I question that strategy. But, who knows - maybe I'm completely off-base there.
The factor here, roughly speaking, is IQ. Give me someone with higher raw intelligence and they'll often quickly get somewhere that someone with more experience has. Just existing and showing up for 10 years doesn't mean you're automatically better than all the 22-year-olds I have lined up for an interview.
---
I wanted to voice some unpopular opinions from the other side of this coin because it seems most people on HN resonate more with the "employee" rather than the "employer".
The latter will be more useful for my organization. Job hopping also seems negatively correlated to specialization, which IMO is your key differentiated value as a prospective employee.
That person who has specialized for 10 years probably hasn't been exposed to the five different environments with 5 different ways of doing things and being able to mix and match the best of all of the environments.
That person who has specialize may know how to code, but do they have experience talking to different customers in different verticals? Have they been involved in the full life cycle including devops?
It has nothing to do with job hoppers deserving more money, it's more that companies don't typically pay those who stick around as well. The job hopper would be more likely to already be making more money, therefore he'd have more leverage going into negotiations. The likelihood that you'd spend ten years specializing in something that is exactly what lots of companies need at the moment is fairly low, especially in an industry where the churn of technologies is high. It's more likely that they'd have ten years experience in a dated technology.
> * Salary. Older employees are more experienced, but, just as importantly, they've already job-hopped a bit, so their base is a lot higher.
First of all, why does job hopping entitle you to a higher salary? A guy who's done 5 jobs of 2 years each, with one of them being most relevant to my position, vs. someone who's done 1 job of 10 years somewhere most relevant to my position is an easy choice. The latter will be more useful for my organization. Job hopping also seems negatively correlated to specialization, which IMO is your key differentiated value as a prospective employee.
Why should your career ADHD command a higher salary?
> And they've probably a lot more personal financial responsibilities. All told, they're unlikely to go for the same salary as a new grad.
Yeah, I can see this coming from a mile away and so I tend to not waste the time of people for whom this is the case. The easiest way for me to do this is being upfront about salary for the position.
> * Interview process. Anecdotal experience, but, the interview process is structured towards new grads. They've studied algorithms recently, so it's at their fingertips. Unless you've brushed up before interviewing you can look sloppy and unsure in comparison. This can be harder if you've an existing job and family commitments. (Note: I'm not saying you shouldn't study; just pointing out that this can happen.)
Fair.
> * It's hard to gauge experience. Simply because a person has been in the industry for 10 years doesn't mean that they're "more experienced".
True.
> * Finally, we devalue experience. A personal bugbear is hearing hiring managers say that they can train up a new grad to be a tech lead in about a year. Unless you've worked on a couple of largish projects - and seen your own designs evolve in response to requirements, I question that strategy. But, who knows - maybe I'm completely off-base there.
The factor here, roughly speaking, is IQ. Give me someone with higher raw intelligence and they'll often quickly get somewhere that someone with more experience has. Just existing and showing up for 10 years doesn't mean you're automatically better than all the 22-year-olds I have lined up for an interview.
---
I wanted to voice some unpopular opinions from the other side of this coin because it seems most people on HN resonate more with the "employee" rather than the "employer".